Benesch v. Underwood, 9271.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9271.,9271. |
| Parties | BENESCH v. UNDERWOOD, Commander of Fort Thomas Military Post. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Victor F. Schmidt, of Middletown, Ohio (Edwin P. Drury, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
John T. Metcalf, of Lexington, Ky., and Major F. Cleveland Hedrick, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (Wendell Berge, Oscar A. Provost and Andrew F. Oehmann, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an inducted soldier of the United States Army who deserted from the Army two days after his induction. At the time the answer of the appellee was filed, the appellant was confined in a Post Guardhouse at Fort Thomas, Kentucky, awaiting trial by a United States Army Court Martial. Judicial notice is taken, from admission at the bar of this court upon oral argument, that appellant was convicted as a deserter by Court Martial, pursuant to the Articles of War; and is now confined in Fort Leavenworth Penitentiary.
The appellant contends that his induction was void, for the reason that, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he was a minister of religion and, as such, exempt from military service. He insists that both the Local Board and the Board of Appeal, functioning under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq., were arbitrary and unfair in the classification of the appellant in Class 1-A, instead of Class 4-D as a "regular minister of religion."
In Rase v. United States, 6 Cir., 129 F.2d 204, this court upheld the conviction and sentence of a Jehovah Witness for failure to report for induction under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, and discussed sufficiently to require no repetition here our view of the phrase "minister of religion" as applicable to Jehovah's Witnesses. It was there declared that the action of the Local Board, within the scope of its authority, is final and not subject to judicial review when the investigation by the Board has been fair and its findings are supported by substantial evidence; but if it is shown that the investigation has been unfair, or that the Board has abused its discretion by a finding contrary to all the substantial evidence, the courts are open for relief under the writ of habeas corpus, if the registrant has exhausted his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cain, 418.
...Cir., 129 F.2d 204, 207; Graf v. Mallon, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 230, 234, 235; Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 242; Benesch v. Underwood, 6 Cir., 132 F.2d 430, 431; Seele v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 1015, 1021; United States v. Messersmith, 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 599; Arbitman v. Wood......
-
Owings v. Secretary of United States Air Force (SAFOS), 23473.
...court-martial transcript & this gives evidence of plaintiff's assertion as supplied herein. /s/ Robert M. Owings 33 In Benesch v. Underwood, 132 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1942), the appellate court took judicial notice of appellant's conviction by a court martial for desertion on the basis of an a......
-
Sunal v. Large, 5490.
...4 Cir., 135 F.2d 610; Honaker v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F.2d 613; Buttecali v. United States, 5 Cir., 130 F.2d 172; Benesch v. Underwood, 6 Cir., 132 F.2d 430; United States v. Messersmith, 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 599; Seele v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 1015; Crutchfield v. United States......
-
Ex parte Catanzaro
...the Sixth Circuit reviewed the propriety of an inductee's classification, though it upheld the judgment denying the writ. Benesch v. Underwood, 1942, 132 F.2d 430. This likewise is assumed to be law by Mr. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion in Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 63 S......